versions of a port

[Thomas De Contes]

Le 19 janv. 10 à 03:59, Joshua Root a écrit :

> On 2010-1-19 13:22 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2010, at 20:11, Thomas De Contes wrote:
>>
>>>> Old versions of MacPorts and snapshots of the ports tree are  
>>>> available
>>>> via http from <http://distfiles.macports.org/MacPorts/> or
>>>> <http://svn.macports.org/repository/macports/downloads/>.
>>>
>>> well, maybe i could get the sources with a computer which has  
>>> svn, and then make a rsync server with them
>>
>> You can save yourself the trouble of setting up an rsync server.  
>> If all you want is to get the last ports tree that works with an  
>> OS version, you're only going to be checking it out once, so you  
>> can just copy that over to your older machine and set your  
>> sources.conf to point to that directory.
>
> Why even check it out with svn? Just use the appropriate archive  
> tarball.

thank you for the link, it should be fine :-)
sorry, i didn't look at it seriously enough, like ryan

(why are there both .gz and .bz2 ?
what's the difference between MacPorts-1.8.0-archive.tar and  
MacPorts-1.8.0.tar ?)


>
>>> so, the ports won't stay compatible with 10.4 ? i'll have to get  
>>> and keep them too ?
>>
>> Ports are already beginning to become incompatible with 10.4. Port  
>> maintainers and upstream software developers are testing on Snow  
>> Leopard now, and sometimes still on Leopard, but on Tiger less  
>> often. 10.4-specific bugs and incompatibilities are thus more  
>> likely to slip in. Whether they can or do get fixed depends on  
>> maintainer or developer willingness.
>>
>> If a future version of MacPorts base becomes incompatible with  
>> 10.4, yes, you should then stick with the last set of ports made  
>> at that time. Not only will later portfiles assume you are running  
>> a supported OS version, later portfiles will also likely use  
>> features only available in that later version of MacPorts, so you  
>> would otherwise start encountering errors about unknown commands.
>>
>>
>> I personally am in favor of retaining 10.4 support as long as  
>> possible, and at this point we have no concrete plans to stop 10.4  
>> support in base. But there may come a day when a feature is added  
>> to base that doesn't work on 10.4 -- like the privilege escalation  
>> code that was added last year which made base incompatible with  
>> 10.3. Or we may follow our existing habits and make 10.4  
>> unsupported as soon as 10.7 comes out.
>
> Tiger is *already* unsupported as per the project-wide policy of
> supporting the two latest release of OS X. Individual maintainers  
> are of
> course free to support whatever OS releases they like, modulo what  
> base
> works on.

oh, only 2 release of OS X, so bad :-(


i use to buy the cheapest macbook with the extended guarantee but no  
other option, and i try to keep it as long as possible (the last one  
run nearly 5 years)
and i use to not upgrade anything, neither hardware nor software

on top of that, the last time i was unlucky, because my old computer  
broke down 2 months before 10.5 come out,
so now my extended guarantee is still running while my OS is no  
longer supported :-(

(i just call apple to ask about 10.6, and they told me that i'd have  
to buy RAM)


>
> You're right that we won't deliberately break base on older OS  
> versions,
> but OTOH the only reason there are Tiger dmgs for the current release
> series is that blb and I happen to have old machines lying around that
> run 10.4, and it's very little extra effort to run "sudo port dmg
> MacPorts" on one of them when doing a release. If making these  
> available
> is giving the wrong impression I might just stop.


please don't :-)

i've understood that if sth doesn't work, i can ask friendly for help  
but it's no longer supported


-- 
Téléassistance / Télémaintenance
http://www.portparallele.com/ThomasDECONTES/